Mostly based on Baker 1997: Thematic Rolesand Syntactic Structure from 9ƭŜƳŜƴǘǎ ƻŦDNJŀƳƳŀNJΥ IŀƴŘōƻƻƪ ƛƴ DŜƴŜNJŀǘƛǾŜ {ȅƴǘŀȄ

The Uniformity of Theta AssignmentHypothesis (UTAH)

1

• The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure.

(Baker 1988, 1997)

2

• Which of the participants in a given event is the subject of the sentence?

• Which of the participants is the object?

• What about participants that are oblique NPs or appear with adpositions?

3

In a simple active transitive sentence, the verb and the theme form a constituent to the exclusion of the agent. That is, the agent asymmetrically c-commands the theme. This is how we have been drawing our trees but it can

also be tested. There are tests that show that the verband the theme can form a constituent to the exclusionof the agent (Baker ’97):

1a. John [VP hit the table ] and Bill did [VP (so) ] too.

b. John said he would hit the table, and [VP hit the table] I guess he did --.

2a. *[XP John hit ] the table and [XP (so) ] did the chair. b. *John said he would hit the table, [XP John hit] I guess -- did it.

4

Asymmetrical c-command is also evidenced by

Binding tests (Baker ’97):

3a. Johni washed himselfi b. Johni washed pictures of himselfi

4a*Heselfi washed Johni . b.*Friends of himselfi washed Johni

agents are higher than themes

(UTAH)

5

• Some difficult cases: psych verbs

(near) synonymous verbs with opposite linking

patterns (Baker ’97):

5a. John likes long novels. b. Peter fears dogs c. Mary worries about the ozone layer

6a. Long novels please John.

b. Dogs frighten Peter.

c. The ozone layer worries Mary.

So what to do in the light of (5-6)?

6

I. Give up the UTAH

II. There is some syntactic operation that obscuresthe original sites of generation (movement)

III. The theta-roles in (5-6) only look similar. Theyare different, so are linked to different positions.

7

Dowty:

Alternative linking due to neither participant being an obvious choice for agent or patient. John is animate and sentient (agentlike), but the novels cause an emotional reaction in John (less agentlike).

Examples in (6) can be inchoative. Not so the ones in (5). So there is a difference in the meaning of the verbs.

8

Pesetsky:

The following two are not the same:

7a. John is angry at the article.

b. The article angered John.

Can you tell a difference?

7a: the target of the anger is the article

7b: the target of the anger does not have to be the article: The article made John angry at the government.

So, John is undergoing a change of state in (7b) and so is a theme, while the article is the cause, and so like an agent.

9

Q: “Does the UTAH stipulate the exact positions of each argument, or does it only put conditions on

their position relative to one other?” (Baker ’97)

What does this question mean? What are the different predictions of the two choices?

RUTAH vs UTAH

10

In favor of RUTAH: Recipients can be a subject but only in the absence of an agent (Baker ’97, Speas): 8a. John received a package from Baraboo. b. Mary sent a package to John from Baraboo. Instruments can be a subject but only in the absence of an agent (Baker ’97, Levin): 9a. John loaded the truck with a crane. b. The crane loaded the truck. What would you say about (8, 9) if you wanted to defend UTAH?

10a. John loaded the truck with a pitchfork. b. *The pitchfork loaded the truck.

11

In favor of UTAH: Intransitive verbs. What does RUTAH predict for intransitives? What does UTAH predict for intransitives? UTAH => “unaccusativity hypothesis”: with verbs whose sole argument is a theme, that argument is generated initially as an object. We find unaccusativity diagnostics in more and more languages. What are unaccusativity diagnostics?

12

Here are some: a) Auxiliary Selection In most Romance and Germanic languages (English and Spanish being exceptions) unaccusative verbs, like French arriver (arrive), select BE, while unergatives, like French rougir (become red), select HAVE (see Ackema 2000, Cocchi 1994, Haider and Rindler- Schjerve 1987, Perlmutter 1989; Reuland 2000; Chierchia 2004, Randall et al. 2004, Sorace 2004). 11a. Marie est arrivee en retard ‘Marie arrived late’ b. Marie a rougi de honte ‘Marie became red with shame’ c. Marie est arrêtée ‘Marie was arrested’

13

b) Resultative constructions

Resultative phrases may be predicated only of the object of a transitive verb, never of the subject. Intransitive verbs split into two groups: resultative phrases appear with unaccusatives, but not with unergatives (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995, Tsujimura 1994, Van Voorst 1986, see also Rappaport-Hovav and Levin 2001):

12a. She licked the knife clean

b. *Dora shouted hoarse

c. The bottle broke open

14

c) Perfect/passive adjectival participles. Participles of transitive verbs can be predicated of the nouns corresponding to their direct objects (4a). Unergative verbs cannot form adjectival participles (4b), while this is possible with unaccusative ones (4c) (Williams 1981, Grewendorf 1989, Hoekstra 1984, Levin & Rapapport 1986; Grimshaw 1990; Zaenen 1993 among many others; see Pesetsky 1995 for critical discussion of the validity of the diagnostic for English):

13 a. der gekußte Studentthe kissed student

b. *der gearbeitete Student * the worked student

c. der eingeschlafene Student

the fallen-asleep student

15

d) ne-cliticization In Italian, cliticization of a partitive phrase by the clitic ne is only possible with direct objects (5a). Unaccusatives permit ne-cliticization (5b), unergatives do not (5c) (see Belletti and Rizzi 1981, Burzio 1986, Lonzi 1985, among others):

14a. Giovanni ne ha insultati due John of them has insulted two

b. Ne arrivano molti of them arrive many

c. *ne telefonano molti of them telephone many

For other languages similar looking tests, based on extraction, have been proposed: en- extraction in French (Legendre 1989), wat-voor/was-fur split in Dutch/German (Den Besten 1982).

16

References

• Baker, Mark C. " Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.” InElements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

• Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:291-352.

• Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language 67:547-619.

• Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs.Linguistic Inquiry 18:126-40.

• Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

17

MIT OpenCourseWarehttp://ocw.mit.edu

24.902 / 24.932 Language and its Structure II: SyntaxFall 2015

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.